Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

wafflycat

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sark54h364o5m2p7m5s5u5q2072qe9intv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:59:22 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
> Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote this:-
>
>>Not only do they cross the pavement to reach Kwik-fit's forecourt, but
>>they
>>frequently drive a significant distance /along/ it, as the road is full of
>>stationary motor vehicles queueing at the lights.
>
> I have seen this too, in a number of places. However, some continue
> to stick their fingers in their ears and claim this never happens.
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wafflycat

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sark54h364o5m2p7m5s5u5q2072qe9intv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:59:22 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
> Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote this:-
>
>>Not only do they cross the pavement to reach Kwik-fit's forecourt, but
>>they
>>frequently drive a significant distance /along/ it, as the road is full of
>>stationary motor vehicles queueing at the lights.
>
> I have seen this too, in a number of places. However, some continue
> to stick their fingers in their ears and claim this never happens.
>

The place I see it most frequently in Naarch, is on the Dereham Road at a
set of traffic lights. LH lane is for straight on and left. The junction is
controlled by traffic lights. Many is the time I've seen motorised
scallywags decide to ignore waiting in the queue at the lights to turn left,
but instead mount the pavement, drive along it and then over the small
forecourt in front of the florist shop on the corner, then back over the
next pavement to make the left turn intead of waiting for the red traffic
light to change to a green one. Usually during the rush hour when there's
folk walking on the pavement too. Such cheeky chappies! Of course, they
must be cyclists in disguise as any fule noe it's only cyclists wot break
the rules when the poor, beleaguered, law-abiding, put-upon, British
motorist (... carried on at page 296: Ed.) Indeed, when driving though
Naarch, it's more often that I see motorists jumping red lights, rather than
cyclists, and I'm looking for them!

Daniel Barlow

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> writes:

> What we need next is a condemnation of those faint-hearted cyclists
> who proffer the excuse that they endanger us as pedestrians because
> they feel frightened of the big bad traffic on "the road".

I have no problem at all with condemning cyclists who endanger us as
pedestrians, whatever justification they use.

I would find it equally worthy of condemnation whether they were
illegally cycling on the footway, legally cycling on a shared path, or
legally crossing the footway to gain access to a parking place.
Endangering road users is not acceptable in any of these
circumstances.

You will observe that I have avoided condemning cyclists who illegally
ride on the footway *without* endangering anybody. This was
deliberate on my part and you need not follow up to point it out.


-dan

Ian Smith

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:12:02 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:
>
> >> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
> >> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
> >> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
> >> herring).
> >
> > Since pedantry seems to have taken over here....
> > Yes I have seen a car driven at normal driving speed along the
> > pavement . This was in a residential area. The nitwit at the wheel
> > took the car about a hundred metres in this way at about 25-30
> > mph. I think that they were upset about waiting for the traffic
> > lights to change.
>
> If you've seen that you should report it to the police and to the
> local authority (the LA might be in a better position to do
> something about it). It doesn't sound like the action of a typical
> qualified driver - perhaps he was a twoccer.

FWIW, I've seen it and there wasn't even the excuse of a wait for
traffic lights. He then came back in the opposite direction on the
other pavement before stopping outside a house and going in. I
photographed the car (it was completely blocking the pavement) then
called the police.

While I was talking on the phone the driver reappeared, so I told him
he shouldn't drive on the pavement. He swore at me and got in his
car. I repeated my assertion and he revved wildly then drove off,
again along the pavement, but had to swerve violently back into the
road to avoid the pole of a pelican crossing traffic light.

FWIW, the pelican in question is placed where it is because it is
across the road at the pedestrian entrance to a primary school, though
this was during the day at a weekend, and no young pedestrians were
actually on the pavement.

I never heard anything from the police, they never asked for the
photographs.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

JNugent

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:12:02 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>>> herring).
>>> Since pedantry seems to have taken over here....
>>> Yes I have seen a car driven at normal driving speed along the
>>> pavement . This was in a residential area. The nitwit at the wheel
>>> took the car about a hundred metres in this way at about 25-30
>>> mph. I think that they were upset about waiting for the traffic
>>> lights to change.
>> If you've seen that you should report it to the police and to the
>> local authority (the LA might be in a better position to do
>> something about it). It doesn't sound like the action of a typical
>> qualified driver - perhaps he was a twoccer.
>
> FWIW, I've seen it and there wasn't even the excuse of a wait for
> traffic lights. He then came back in the opposite direction on the
> other pavement before stopping outside a house and going in. I
> photographed the car (it was completely blocking the pavement) then
> called the police.
>
> While I was talking on the phone the driver reappeared, so I told him
> he shouldn't drive on the pavement. He swore at me and got in his
> car. I repeated my assertion and he revved wildly then drove off,
> again along the pavement, but had to swerve violently back into the
> road to avoid the pole of a pelican crossing traffic light.
>
> FWIW, the pelican in question is placed where it is because it is
> across the road at the pedestrian entrance to a primary school, though
> this was during the day at a weekend, and no young pedestrians were
> actually on the pavement.
>
> I never heard anything from the police, they never asked for the
> photographs.

You still did the right thing. That others may not have done the right
thing is not your fault.

Marc

JNugent wrote:
> NewRiderPS wrote:
>
>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>> collisions with cyclists?
>
> *Too* often.
>

once every 4-5 years?

JNugent

Marc wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> NewRiderPS wrote:

>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>> collisions with cyclists?

>> *Too* often.

> once every 4-5 years?

No.

But even if it were, would that be too infrequent for you?

Marc

JNugent wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> NewRiderPS wrote:
>
>>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>>> collisions with cyclists?
>
>>> *Too* often.
>
>> once every 4-5 years?
>
> No.

Your turn then, how often?

JNugent

Marc wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Marc wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> NewRiderPS wrote:
>>
>>>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>>>> collisions with cyclists?
>>
>>>> *Too* often.
>>
>>> once every 4-5 years?
>>
>> No.
>
> Your turn then, how often?

Let's play it your way ...

If, every five years, a UK pedestrian was killed by a law-breaking
cyclist riding along the footway, would that amount to:

(a) too few pedestrians being killed by cyclists?

(b) about the right number of pedestrians being killed by cyclists?

(c) one too many?

Daniel Barlow

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> writes:
> If, every five years, a UK pedestrian was killed by a law-breaking
> cyclist riding along the footway, would that amount to:
>
> (a) too few pedestrians being killed by cyclists?
>
> (b) about the right number of pedestrians being killed by cyclists?
>
> (c) one too many?

"If it saves just one life ..."

Please, won't somebody think of the children?


-dan

Marc

JNugent wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> NewRiderPS wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>>>>> collisions with cyclists?
>>>
>>>>> *Too* often.
>>>
>>>> once every 4-5 years?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Your turn then, how often?
>
> Let's play it your way ...

Fine, answer the question.... How often?

JNugent

Daniel Barlow wrote:

> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> writes:

>> If, every five years, a UK pedestrian was killed by a law-breaking
>> cyclist riding along the footway, would that amount to:

>> (a) too few pedestrians being killed by cyclists?
>> (b) about the right number of pedestrians being killed by cyclists?
>> (c) one too many?

> "If it saves just one life ..."

> Please, won't somebody think of the children?

That's actually a much more appropriate response than I think you
intended to post.

Is the little girl out of danger yet, do you know?

JNugent

Marc wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Marc wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Marc wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> NewRiderPS wrote:

>>>>>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>>>>>> collisions with cyclists?

>>>>>> *Too* often.

>>>>> once every 4-5 years?

>>>> No.

>>> Your turn then, how often?

>> Let's play it your way ...

> Fine, answer the question.... How often?

I don't know; I don't spend my life looking up stats - I prefer to look
at things from a broad perspective. But pedestrians - often doing
outrageous things like stepping out of their own front doors or loading
their cars - are certainly killed or seriously injured by footway
cyclits rather more often than once in five years.

But however few it is, it's too many, as I'm sure you would have agreed
had you not been too embarrassed to give your answer. I do you the
honour of assuming that you don't have a target for a minimum number of
pedestrians killed in such circumstances and that you too would prefer
that the number of pedestrians killed on the footway by cyclists was zero.

Marc

JNugent wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Marc wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Marc wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> NewRiderPS wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>>>>>>> collisions with cyclists?
>
>>>>>>> *Too* often.
>
>>>>>> once every 4-5 years?
>
>>>>> No.
>
>>>> Your turn then, how often?
>
>>> Let's play it your way ...
>
>> Fine, answer the question.... How often?
>
> I don't know; I don't spend my life looking up stats - I prefer to look
> at things from a broad perspective. But pedestrians - often doing
> outrageous things like stepping out of their own front doors or loading
> their cars - are certainly killed or seriously injured by footway
> cyclits rather more often than once in five years.

Sure? You have moved from 'life threatening' to "seriously injured" and
you admit you don't know the facts, how long before we get to "bruised
knee" , with you still not knowing how often it really happens?
You said that 'life threatening' injuries from collisions with cyclists
occured "*Too* often" yet it seems you don't know how often is too often!
>
> But however few it is, it's too many,

Is it?

Have you done a cost benefit excercise to measure if it really is "too
many"? Thousands are killed every year by car drivers, that could be
slashed by enforcing a 5mph limit everywhere, but it's not worth it.
That means that society has decided that the kill rate is acceptable, I
would suggest that the same is true of pavement cyclists. Society has
decided that one death every 4-5 years is acceptable , in that you are
out of step with society.

as I'm sure you would have agreed
> had you not been too embarrassed to give your answer.

I wasn't embarrised, when I have finished with you answering my question
, I may get around to considering answering your mind trap.
I do you the
> honour of assuming that you don't have a target for a minimum number of
> pedestrians killed in such circumstances and that you too would prefer
> that the number of pedestrians killed on the footway by cyclists was zero.

An impossible target ,pedestrians killed on the footway by cyclists = a
number higher than zero to date , so can never =0, no matter how far you
stretch the length of measurment. Your demand for 0 makes a good sound
bite, much like those that scream for 0% alcohol limit for drivers
without understanding the biological or numerical problems that would
create.